Foreign media: Ansem, an encrypted trader, believes that a currency buy-back does not support the project valuation alone. In the case of Hyperliquid, for example, HYPE and Pump.fumPMP, both used Platform revenues to buy back tokens, but there was a wide gap in the valuation given by the market.

There is a significant gap in the valuation of the two projects

Ansem, in an X post published on 17 July, stated that the annualized income of Hyperliquid was approximately $800 million, with a total diluted estimate of approximately $65 billion; the annualized income of Pump.fun was about $440 million and the total diluted estimate of PUMP was about $1.4 billion.

  • Hyperliquid Annualized Revenues about $800 million
  • HYPE Total dilution estimate of approximately $65 billion
  • PUMP completely diluted estimates of about $1.4 billion

On that basis, he concluded that the continued repurchase was not the only factor determining the value of the encrypted project. Repurchases are difficult to change market pricing alone when community trust is low and user relationships are weak.

Hyperliquid gets a higher trust premium

In Ansem, it appears that Hyperliquid obtained a higher valuation, not only because of the strong repurchase but also because of the long-term delivery of the product by the team, less over-commitment and incentives based on quantifiable user behaviour. This approach enhances the trust of core users.

In his view, market confidence, community coherence and whether the project had met its commitments would create a “trust premium” that could not be fully measured by financial indicators. This is also an important reason for the higher valuation of HYPE relative income.

According to crypto.news, Hyperliquid's Assistance Fund spends most of its agreement costs on continuous purchases of hype on the open market. By May 2026, the cumulative value of the mechanism had exceeded $1.3 billion.

Pump.fun still subject to air drops I'm tired.

Pump.fun also invested a lot of money to support PUMP. Reports indicate that the platform had spent $233 million on repurchases of 62.2 billion PUMPs by early January of this year, followed by large-scale destruction.

However, PUMP's performance remains weak. On 15 July, Pump.fun distributed 57,279 million PUMPs to 121 teams and investors ' wallets, valued at approximately $8,649 million at current prices, and initiated a three-year unlocking cycle, provided that the one-year lock has ended. The relevant transfers mean that the tokens can be moved, but they do not mean that the recipient has sold them.

Ansem believes that the key to the problem remains community relations. Pump.fun previously mentioned that the airdrops had not landed, which reduced the consistency between the project and the core users. The co-founder Alon Cohen stated in July 2025 that the air-drop programme was still in place but would not be launched in the short term.

It's a market view.

Ansem believes that, if Pump.fun improves communication and completes the distribution that users expect, it may reduce some of the valuation gaps and lead to a recovery in activity. But this is still his market judgement and does not mean that future prices will change in the same direction.

He also cited bitcoin as an example of the existence of a “trust premium”. Bitcoin does not generate business income per se, but a fixed supply cap of 21 million and long-term stable network rules still underpin much higher market valuations than general projects.